The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, March 21, 2014

by IPT NewsA British research study
of Muslim radicalization is challenging some key conventional wisdom.
It identifies "youth, wealth, and being in full-time education" as
potential risk factorsLess than 3 percent of the 600 British Muslims surveyed by London's Queen Mary University were sympathetic with terrorism, while another 6 percent "remained neutral."But those with the highest sympathy were respondents born in the
United Kingdom, under age 20 and full time students. In addition, people
from high income homes – more than £75,000 a year ($123,000) were more
prone to sympathize with political violence. People with mental health
problems also were more likely to support terror.This contradicts an accepted narrative that economic frustration and a lack of education fueled Islamic extremism."We were surprised that [the] inequality paradigm seems not to be supported," lead researcher Kamaldeep Bhui told
Al-Jazeera. "The study essentially seemed to show that those born in
the U.K. consistent with the radicalization paradigm are actually more
affluent or well off."The study does not identify "what factors make potential recruits
open to persuasion to join a terrorist movement," said Bhui, a professor
of cultural psychiatry and epidemiology. He hopes the survey can be used to identify vulnerable populations and "work to shift them and hopefully reduce" radicalization.The findings are significant, if only for the strict academic
approach taken by Bhui and her team. And it might be refreshing and
enlightening to see similar academic pursuit in the United States to
help identify risk factors and gateways to radicalization. A 2007 Pew survey found a quarter of Muslim American men under age 30 considered suicide bombings justifiable.This week alone, young men from California and Michigan were arrested for plotting to join terrorists fighting in Syria's civil war.But the notion that affluent, well-educated Muslims are potentially
more likely to become radicals is a surprise ignores years of anecdotal
evidence. Terrorist groups from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and
al-Qaida all are led by men with advanced degrees. Most of the 9/11
hijackers were college educated and middle class – with eight engineers among them – and the worst terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11 was carried out by an Army psychiatrist.IPT NewsSource: http://www.investigativeproject.org/4322/younger-educated-and-affluent-the-uk-terror Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

by Rafael MedoffJNS.org – Secretary
of State John Kerry’s remark last week that it is a “mistake” to
insist that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state
brings to mind a little-known episode in the early 1950s, when the
Eisenhower administration briefly embraced the notion that Israel should
stop identifying itself as a Jewish state.

The key figure in this unusual
chapter in U.S.-Israel relations was a young U.S. Army officer named
Henry A. Byroade, who in 1952 was picked by President Harry Truman to be
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, although he had
no Middle East-related experience or education.

According to a previously
unpublished interview with Byroade in the files of the Truman
Presidential Library, in Missouri, the president summoned Byroade for a
discussion in late 1952, shortly before he left office. “I was very
critical of both the policies of Israel and our policy towards Israel,”
Byroade recalled. “And he outlined his view[s] for me, which really were
very surprisingly similar my own. I left there extremely encouraged
that we would get White House backing for what I called an even-handed,
balanced policy position between both Arabs and Israel.”

Bryoade reasoned that if
Truman, who had received considerable Jewish support, was ready to back
away from Israel, then his successor Dwight Eisenhower, who had much
weaker ties to American Jewry, would be even less supportive of Israel.
And he was right.

In April 1953, Israeli Foreign
Minister Moshe Sharett visited Washington and got a first-hand taste of
how Byroade was reshaping U.S. policy. Byroade demanded that Israel
make territorial concessions to the Arabs, and threatened Sharett that
the Eisenhower administration would present “our own peace plan,” which
Israel might not like.

On the same day Byroade met
with Sharett, two leaders of the anti-Zionist American Council for
Judaism (ACJ) met with President Dwight Eisenhower. The Council had
provoked tremendous controversy with its lobbying in the 1940s against
creation of a Jewish state. What is not widely realized is that even
after Israel was established, the Council continued its activities and,
in fact, had even more impact on U.S. policy than previously.

ACJ officials Lessing Rosenwald and George Levison urged the
president to consider American Jews a purely religious group with no
obligations to Israel. They also denounced the idea of American Jewish
immigration to Israel and said the Israelis should become “Middle
Eastern” like their neighbors. Levison came away from the meeting
convinced that Eisenhower was “in general agreement with our views.”Afterwards, they visited the State Department and delivered a
memorandum making the same points. Assistant Secretary Byroade took the
memo with him when he accompanied Secretary of State John Foster Dulles
to Israel in May. Parts of the ACJ memo found their way into a landmark
Mideast policy speech, ghostwritten by Byroade, that Dulles delivered in
June.

Dulles vowed to improve
relations with the Arabs, said the U.S. would not become “a backer of
expansionist Zionism,” and proposed that Jerusalem be ruled by “the
world religious community,” and not be Israel’s capital. Challenging
Israel’s identity, Dulles declared that Israel “should become a part of
the Near East community and cease to look upon itself… as alien to this
community.”

Jewish leaders hoped the
speech did not represent a shift in U.S. policy, but those hopes were
soon dashed. When the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Abba Eban met with
Dulles in October, the secretary ticked off a lift of demands that
Byroade had prepared for him: Israel must “re-examine its policy of
encouraging large-scale immigration,” refrain from counter-terror raids,
and “bear her share of the Arab refugee burden.”

By the spring of 1954, Byroade
was ready to go public. Sixty years ago next month (on April 19, 1954),
in an address to the World Affairs Council, in Dayton, he called on
Israelis to “look upon yourselves as a Middle Eastern state, rather than
as a headquarters… of a world-wide grouping of people of a particular
religious faith.” He also demanded that Israel “drop the attitude of the
conqueror” and halt what he called “retaliatory killings.”

Then, with the approval of
Secretary Dulles, Byroade delivered the keynote address at the ACJ’s
annual convention, in Philadelphia on May 1. His public association with
the anti-Zionist group appalled Jewish leaders. And what he said at
the conference was even worse.

Byroade repeated his demand
that Israel become “a Middle Eastern state.” He targeted Jewish
immigration to Israel as a central obstacle to peace, asserting that
Israel’s calls for “greatly expanded immigration” convinced the Arabs
that it was planning “a future attempt at territorial expansion.”

The Israeli government filed
an official protest against the “unjustified interference in matters
which are purely Israel’s own concern.” American Zionist leader Emanuel
Neumann blasted “Byroadeism” for “negating the hopes and dreams and the
religious emotions of countless generations.” In a dramatic
demonstration of Israel’s commitment to aliyah, keynote speakers at 19
different government-sponsored Israel Independence Day events throughout
Israel the following week focused their remarks on the need for
increased immigration.

The Eisenhower administration
stood by Byroade and his comments. But the controversial policy he was
shaping soon withered in the face of Arab intransigence. As Byroade
discovered during his subsequent stint as U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Arab
leaders such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser could not be appeased by
Israeli concessions on immigration, territory, or refugees. Their
unflinching refusal to accept Israel’s existence made it impossible for
the Byroade line to be maintained as America’s Mideast policy in the
years to follow.

Dr. Rafael Medoff is co-author, with Chaim I. Waxman, of the Historical Dictionary of Zionism.Source: http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/03/20/the-state-department%E2%80%99s-campaign-against-the-%E2%80%98jewish-state%E2%80%99-idea%E2%80%94in-1954/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

by Gidon Ben-zviRecent clashes between Israeli Defense Force soldiers and terrorist
groups operating across the border have created a potentially explosive
situation for Israel, GOC Northern Command Major General Yair Golan told
the French newspaper Le Figaro on Tuesday.“The situation has become explosive,
with one more spark being able to ignite a confrontation,” Golan said in
his interview, cited by Israel’s Walla.Four IDF soldiers were injured on
Tuesday, one severely, by an explosive device detonated in the Golan
Heights along the Syrian border. The IDF said in a statement that in
response it “retaliated towards Syrian military positions.”The IDF is concerned about the
growing number of Jihadist terrorist cells from around the world that
have established footholds just across the Israeli border with Syria,
Golan explained.“After the Assad regime, Israel will be their next target,” he said.In response to the escalating tension
up north, the Israeli military is building a”smart” security fence,
replacing reserve forces with army regulars and enhancing its
intelligence gathering capabilities, Golan told Le Figaro.He explained that while to date “there
are only 300 fighters and they have been careful to not attack us
directly,” the IDF has already developed a plan of action should the
security situation intensify.Regarding terror group Hezbollah’s
role in the recent attacks against Israeli soldiers up north, Golan
noted that since the end of the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the Shiite
Jihadist terrorist organization has been making concerted efforts to
obtain weapons from Iran and Russia via Syria.“Hezbollah is seeking to bridge the
arms gap between it and Israel as well as to increase its deterrent
capability,” the IDF general added.Major General Golan also touched on the issue of Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian civil war, Walla
reported. He said at least 5,000 members of the Lebanon-based group,
which is funded and guided by Iran, have participated in Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad’s bloody war.While Hezbollah has lost between 200
and 300 fighters in Syria, Golan asserted that the organization has
“gained valuable operational experience.”Gidon Ben-zviSource: http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/03/20/idf-northern-command-situation-is-explosive-one-spark-could-ignite-a-major-confrontation/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Just before Russian President Vladimir
Putin orchestrated Russia’s takeover of Crimea, the US’s Broadcasting
Board of Governors that controls Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty
announced that it will be ending its broadcast to Iraq and the Balkans
next year.

And this makes sense. As far as the Obama administration is
concerned, Iraq ceased to exist in 2011, when the last US forces got out
of the country.As for the Baltics, well, really who cares about them? Russia, after
all, wants the same things America does. Everything will be fine.As Obama said to Governor Mitt Romney during one of the 2012
presidential debates, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their
foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”During the election, Obama was famously caught on an open microphone
promising President Putin’s stand-in Dmitry Medvedev that he would have
“more flexibility,” on missile defense after the presidential election.He asked Medvedev to ask Putin to give him “more space” until after November 2012.With a five-and-half-year record of selling US allies like Poland,
the Czech Republic and even the Syrian opposition out to please Putin,
it should be obvious that Obama will do nothing effective to show Putin
the error of his ways in Ukraine.Obama doesn’t have a problem with Putin.And as long as Putin remains anti-American, he will have no reason to be worried about Obama.

Consider Libya. Three years ago this week, NATO forces supported by
the US began their campaign to bring down Libyan dictator Muammar
Gaddafi.As Patrick Coburn noted in The Independent over the weekend, the same
Western forces who insisted that their “responsibility to protect” the
Libyan people from a possible massacre by Gaddafi’s forces compelled
them to bring down Gaddafi and his regime have had nothing to say today
about the ongoing bloodbath in post-Gaddafi Libya.Libya is disintegrating today. There is no central governing authority.But Gaddafi, the neutered dictator who quit the terrorism and
nuclear-proliferation rackets after the US-led invasion of Iraq, is
gone. So no one cares.Coburn mentioned the recent documentary aired on Al Jazeera – America
that upended the West’s narrative that the bombing of Pan Am 103 in
1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was the work of the Libyan government.
According to a credible Iranian defector, the attack was ordered by Iran
and carried out by Palestinian terrorists from Ahmed Jibril’s PFLP-GC.He wrote, “the documentary emphasizes the sheer number of important
politicians and senior officials over the years who must have looked at
intelligence reports revealing the truth about Lockerbie, but still
happily lied about it.”If the Al Jazeera documentary is correct, there is good reason for
the public in the US, Europe and throughout the world to be angry about
the cover-up.But there is no reason to be surprised.Since its inception, the Iranian regime has been at war with the US.
It has carried out one act of aggression after another. These have run
the gamut from the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding
hostage US diplomats for 444 days, to the use of Lebanese and
Palestinian proxies to murder US officials, citizens and soldiers in
countless attacks over the intervening 35 years, to building a military
presence in Latin America, to developing nuclear weapons.And from its earliest days, the same Iranian regime has been courted
by one US administration after another seeking to accommodate Tehran.A similar situation obtains with the Palestinians. Like the Iranians,
the PLO has carried out countless acts of terrorism that have killed US
officials and citizens.From the 1970 Fatah execution of the US ambassador and deputy chief
of mission in Khartoum to the 2003 bombing of the US embassy convoy in
Gaza, the PLO has never abandoned terrorism against the US.No less importantly, the PLO is the architect of modern terrorism.
From airline hijackings, to the massacre of schoolchildren, from bus
bombings to the destabilization of nation states, the PLO is the
original author of much of the mayhem and global terrorism the US has
led the fight against since the 1980s.And of course, the PLO’s main stated goal is the destruction of
Israel, the US’s only dependable ally, and the only liberal democracy in
the Middle East.Yet, as has been the case with the Iranian regime, successive US
administrations have courted, protected and upheld the PLO as moderate,
reformed or almost reformed militants.In many ways, then the Obama administration is simply a loyal
successor of previous administrations. But in one essential way, it is
also different.IN A 2006 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, civil rights historian
Shelby Steele argued that the reason the US has lost every war it has
fought since World War II despite the fact that it has had the military
might to vanquish all of its enemies is “white guilt.”White guilt, he argued, makes its sufferers in the West believe that
they lack the moral authority to act due to the stigma of white
supremacy and imperialism.Writing of the then raging insurgency in Iraq, Steele explained,
“When America – the greatest embodiment of Western power – goes to war
in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from
the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus in Iraq we are in two wars,
one against an insurgency and the other against the past – two fronts,
two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of
dissociation.”This neurotic view of America’s moral underpinning is what explains
the instinctive American tendency to strike out at those who do not
oppose the West – like Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and Hosni Mubarak’s
regime in Egypt – while giving a pass to those who do – like the
Palestinians and the Iranians.But whereas white guilt has afflicted the US leadership for the past
several generations, past administrations were willing to set it aside
when necessary to advance US national security interests.

This cannot happen with Obama.Obama owes his presidency to white guilt. His promise to American
voters was that by voting for him, they would expiate their guilt for
the sins of European imperialists and southern racists.

It was the American desire to move beyond the past that enabled a
first-term senator with radical connections and the most liberal voting
record in the Senate to get elected to the presidency.But tragically for the US and the free world, Obama’s worldview is
informed not by an appreciation for what Steele extolled as America’s
“moral transformation,” on issue of race. Rather it is informed by his
conviction that the US deserves its guilt.Obama does not share Bill Clinton’s view that the US is “the
indispensable nation,” although he invoked the term on the campaign
trail in 2012.From his behavior toward foe and friend alike, Obama gives the
impression that he does not believe the US has the right to stand up for
its interests.Moreover, his actions from Israel to Eastern Europe to Egypt and
Libya indicate that he believes there is something wrong with nations
that support and believe in the US.Their pro-Americanism apparently makes them guilty of white guilt by association.So Iran, the Palestinians and Russia needn’t worry. Obama will not
learn from his mistakes, because as far as he is concerned, he hasn’t
made any.

by Michael RubinSo, Secretary of State John Kerry is deeply upset and insulted
that Israel’s defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, criticized U.S. strategy
and suggested that the United States is exuding weakness. One would
think the former senator from Massachusetts would have a thicker skin,
and might also consider if there was something to Yaalon’s remarks,
however undiplomatic they might have been. Never mind, however. What is
truly revealing is how Kerry acts in other circumstances when officials
from other countries make similar statements castigating U.S. policy.Here, for example, is Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, speaking
earlier this month: “America no longer creates events in the region;
rather it is the Muslims who create events and the Americans are forced
to be another actor in decline, although not a dominant player.
Meanwhile, the Americans have lost operational power against Syria today
and this is a great proof for Muslims.” Kerry’s reaction? Crickets.
Obama’s reaction? Nada. And, lest this be seen as an exception rather
than the rule, here is an excerpt (and my analysis) of a statement from Tehran that went even further last month. And where is Kerry every time Iranian leaders encourage chants of “Death to America” after Friday prayers in central Tehran?The Obama administration’s heightened sensitivity to criticism
doesn’t apply to the Palestinian Authority either. Kerry remains silent
when his much-heralded partner in peace talks not only rejects American
positions but also lionizes terrorists and murderers, hardly an attitude that advances U.S. interests in the region.Bashing allies isn’t going to bring respect back to the United States
on the world stage, nor is forcing allies to genuflect. Diplomatic
temper tantrums aren’t going to imbue Kerry with an aura of competence
that his policies and actions haven’t managed to achieve. Sometimes,
tough words from friends are necessary, even with the moral inversion
that currently underpins Obama and Kerry’s words and actions.Michael RubinSource: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/03/20/kerrys-diplomatic-double-standards-yaalon-israel-iran-palestinians/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The dead included a 2-year-old girl, five year olds and
six year olds. They also included Mathilda Askenazy-Daniel, a
68-year-old woman who died in the hospital after being burned over 90
percent of her body.The coastal massacre began with the murder of an American
photographer, Gail Rubin. One of the youngest victims was Ilan Hochman, a
3-year-old boy, seen above.Ilan died along with his older brother, 6-year-old Roi and his
mother, Rebecca Hochman. Their father lost his legs trying to stop the
terrorists on the bus.

In keeping with their annual tradition, Fatah and the PA
celebrated the anniversary of the most lethal terror attack against
Israel. On Facebook, Fatah celebrated the anniversary of the massacre
with several posts, referring to the terrorists as “stars” and “heroes”:At an event, Fatah’s spokesman Ahmad Assaf praised terrorist Dalal
Mughrabi as “an extraordinary example of struggle, whose headline is
bravery, heroism, sacrifice and courage” and who “inspired her
generation and the next generations.”Mahmoud Abbas’ advisor on NGOs Sultan Abu Al-Einein said at another
event, “Yes, March is honored by this Palestinian blood… They [Israelis]
are deluding themselves if they think the negotiations are our only
choice. Let the young people hear me: Allah, honor us with Martyrdom
(Shahada). Allah, give us the honor of being part of the procession of
Martyrs.”

by E. Jeffrey LudwigIn a recent article,
Jonathan Tobin stated, “If the president were genuinely interested in
pursuing peace he would be hammering the Palestinians for their behavior
and making it clear they would pay a high price for saying no to
Kerry’s framework. Instead, he has given Abbas carte blanche to
maintain the same obdurate stance he has taken since he took over the
PA from his longtime boss Arafat….. All Obama is doing is setting up
Israel to take the fall for a fourth Palestinian ‘no’ to peace.” An
informed reader can see the point Tobin is making. Abbas is spoken to
and spoken about by Obama and Kerry as though he has good intentions
towards peace despite his continuous unwavering objections and lack of
giving back to Israel in negotiations. Obama will never rebuke him nor
threaten him as he has done many times with Israel. He and Kerry cajole
and coddle Abbas as though he were a sometimes recalcitrant but
basically well-meaning player in the peace game. However, with Israel,
despite all its compromises, our government uses a different rhetoric
that publicly reprimands Israe lfor being hard-nosed and uncompromising,
and even threatens her with a third Intifada. Given these scripted
scenarios, it is clear that indeed Israel is intended as the “fall guy”
in the likelihood of failed negotiations.At
the same time, looking at an incredible cluster of Obama foreign policy
failures (how far and how long can he boast about taking out Osama?)
this attempt to "blame Israel" for any "failure" may backfire. Will
Israel be blamed if the so-called two-state solution is not achieved? Or
will Obama be blamed as perpetrating another foreign policy blunder?
It seems more likely that Obama himself will look like the hind parts of
a horse. Libya, having been bombed illegally with no declaration by
Congress, followed by Qaddafi's removal, is showing no democratic
trends despite claims that the bombing was intended to instate democracy
in that country. Further, the Benghazi incident, with the first
murdered American ambassador in decades, is a disgusting event that
commands revulsion by every patriotic and right thinking American. No
one has been arrested or tried in connection with the Benghazi murders.Egypt
was a place where we backed the wrong horse. Obama tried to force
Sharia law and murderous tyranny on the Egyptian people by so-called
legitimate democratic means, but thankfully, he was thwarted. Syria's
civil war has not improved one iota, and the chemical weapons problem
has not been solved. Guantanamo Bay is still open, but the perpetrators
of 9/11 still haven't been brought to justice. Africa is mired in civil
war, starvation, and life-threatening diseases, and little has been done
by the USA. The Castro brothers are still in charge in Cuba, and their
Communist associates are still breezing along in Venezuela despite that
country's wrecked economy. China continues to make aggressive moves
against Taiwan and the Philippines, and North Korea is increasing its
stockpile of nuclear missiles. Our military is being downsized to
pre-WWII levels, and our standing armies gutted. We have 450,000
soldiers, Russia has 950,000, and China over 2,000,000 [paid for with
the interest alone of our debt to China]. Japan, seeing the weakness of
the U.S., is now beginning to take steps to remilitarize. Our nuclear
arsenal is now below that of Russia based on an arms limitation signed
during Obama's first term (when it was fashionable for the
administration to talk about a 'reset' with Russia as part of a new
post-cold war strategy). Georgia and now the Crimea have been co-opted
by the gangsters of Russia.And
what about the foreign policy biggies, Iraq and Afghanistan? More of
our service men and women have been killed and wounded in
Afghanustan since Obama became president than in all prior years of our
engagement. A civil war is clearly emerging in Iraq, and right now that
country has become a vassal state of Iran. Afghanistan was declared to
have surrendered under Bush, but we continue to be there under Obama.
Kabul is held by the Karzai government, but the rest of the country
still belongs to those warlords who supposedly live in caves. What we
are doing there, and where we are going with that project has,
incredibly, become even more murky under Obama than it was under Bush
(pretty murky then too). After
supposedly defeating the Taliban -- who were condemned by us for
harboring Osama and Al-Qaeda – the Karzai government we installed is now
talking about negotiating with that selfsame Taliban. The
nation-building component is clearly unsuccessful. The net result is
that oil from Iraq may be raised in price, and America will suffer at
the very hands of a country we supposedly saved from despotism under
Saddam. President Obama is not offering a shred of clarity or
leadership in these embroilments. The public is left to stew in disgust
and to wonder about the future while, at the same time, the war wounded
and war dead pile up. In
short, if Obama fails in getting a reconciliation between the
Palestinian Arabs and Israel, it will not be surprising. He is bringing
nothing to the table not tried by this three immediate predecessors in
office, except an arrogance that puts the "N" in narcissism. An attempt
to set up Israel to be blamed in case present negotiations collapse may
in fact be administration policy. However, since foreign policy failure
is the keynote of the Obama presidency, it is likely that world leaders
and the American people will conclude that a collapsed talk between the
P.A. and the Israeli government is simply another in a string of
egregious U.S. mistakes.E. Jeffrey
Ludwig is a Harvard Master Teacher who has taught at Harvard, Penn
State, Juniata College, and various secondary schools.Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/setting_up_israel.html Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

It sounds like something you don't want to
know too much about. When you type an address into your computer's
browser, you go to that address. How your computer knows where to find
the Google image of kittens and puppies isn't your problem, is it?Well, it might be. Not kittens, perhaps, but what if you want to
find the Israeli Ministry of Tourism or the American Constitution?DNS and ICANN are acronyms you should know. DNS is the Internet
domain name system -- a single list that gets you to the server that
runs the program you're looking for. ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
which manages DNS under a contract with the U.S. Department of
Commerce. If it sounds like an American monopoly, it is -- for now, but
not much longer.Although the Internet is an American invention -- by the Pentagon --
ICANN has an international board of “stakeholders,” including foreign
governments, civil society activists and corporations. They have long
wanted control and they are about to get it. The U.S. has agreed to give
up exclusive control of ICANN to an international governing system yet
to be developed. However the system emerges, what is clear is that the
Commerce Department will no longer manage the list. Russia and China
have argued for individual countries to manage the DNS -- which would
enable them to decide which organizations, companies, or individuals
could have a domain name; and when to remove access to a domain name.
Others have argued for a UN body to take over -- with all the political
machinations one would expect, including discrimination against Israel
and the United States.Business Week explains:

That is the advantage of the current... single-domain-name system. No
country (other than the U.S.) gets to decide what idea deserves a Web
address, and while U.S. policies and practices in other cyber realms
have been less than stellar, it has been an outstanding protector of
free speech on the Internet. Power can exist even when it isn’t
exercised or even visible. The Commerce Department has ensured the
growth of a lively, commercial, obstreperous Internet in the same way
the European Union thrived, in part, under the protective umbrella of
all those American tanks waiting to roll into the Fulda Gap.

It is true that American government spying has reached a level that
offends a great many people, including a great many Americans, but at a
minimum we can and do have a history of constitutional protections to
redress government excesses and misguided policies, and to protect our
privacy. Edward Snowden, NSA, breaches of personal data by Target and other commercial entities, and concerns by technology security professionals about the ObamaCare website appear to have ignited precisely such a debate.Elsewhere, on the other hand, more governments are interested in
limiting the Internet than are interested in allowing the promotion of
ideas they -- the governments -- find offensive or dangerous. Russia
might want to “lose” the Ukrainian domain name; China might do the same
to “FreedomforUyghurs.org” (yes, we made that up); and how many would
block Israeli addresses? What if Greece's Golden Dawn Party applied for
“Nazi.com”? There is also Venezuela and its ALBA allies Cuba, Nicaragua,
and Ecuador; Brazil, where President Dilma Roussef has made her mark
criticizing American spying; Iran; and Muslim-Brotherhood-supporting
Qatar and Turkey (which also has a serious problem with domestic
discord). There are countries that want to be able to "protect" their
citizens from ideas/people/political associations that are anathema.
Saudi Arabia just banned 51 baby names "offensive
to Saudi culture." Included are Alice, Linda, Eleanor, Benyamin, and
Arabic names that have a royal and/or religious connotation, or
otherwise offend Saudi government sensibilities. What might Egypt ban?All and more are candidates for joining a bloc wanting to limit the
spread of American ideas. All have reason to support a bloc that ensures
no American dominance of international avenues of communication, and
all would support restrictions on non-government-controlled avenues. The
whole notion of free speech and free access to information is at risk,
just as people in many parts of the world were getting used to it.And if we're considering the West as our ally in this, even Germany,
supported politically by other Western European countries because of NSA
spying, will be tempted. Australia's communications minister Malcolm
Turnbull, had very mixed views. He applauded the decision, calling it,
“A momentous day in the history of the Internet,” and said American
involvement was “central, but increasingly symbolic.” America, he
added, “has aroused more and more controversy and from some quarters
animosity” as stakeholders wonder, “How could the Internet belong to the
world and yet at its very heart be overseen by a contract with the U.S.
Government?” Yet even Turnbull worried that the new system “must be one
which supports and enhances the multi-stakeholder model and in
particular must not involve the replacement of the U.S. Government with a
government-led or inter-governmental organization, like the UN.”OK, so it can't be America, it just has to function like
America. Spoken like a liberal. The fact that the U.S. has stopped
insisting on American control of DNS and ICANN is yet another indication
that President Obama is willing to trust the “international community”
to do the right things. Good luck to the president and to Mr. Turnbull.
In the real world, the U.S. is the bogeyman and Israel is its adjunct.

Nothing is likely to happen to Internet governance for another year
or so, until the new system and its regulations are developed. But
absent the emergence of a large, international group of free speech
advocates, it is coming. Your Google kittens and puppies may be safe,
but the free exchange of ideas, including ideas -- and countries --
deemed “offensive,” “dangerous,” or “unacceptable” is one step closer to
regulation by countries that find an extraordinary number of ideas and
countries offensive, dangerous, and unacceptable.

Moderate, traditional, spiritual
and even conservative British Muslims should hearken to London Mayor
Boris Johnson's message and support effective measures to curb the
spread of extremist ideology among their vulnerable offspring. Not only
are these practices morally abhorrent, and deserve better than the
complicity of silence, but in addition, the survival of Islam as a
normal component of the religious spectrum in the UK is at stake.

As Britain continues to wrestle with the challenge of radical Islam
and its product, terrorism, on March 2, 2014, London Mayor Boris Johnson
contributed a column to one of Britain's leading journals, The Sunday Telegraph, "The children taught at home about murder and bombings."Johnson's commentary correctly placed radical Islamist ideology in
the same category with pedophilia and female genital mutilation (FGM) as
moral abominations with which the British political class has failed
adequately to contend, and continued, "I worry that their work is being
hampered by what I am obliged to call political correctness. ... There
is built in to the British system a reluctance to be judgmental about
someone else's culture, even if that reluctance places children at risk"
– a decision, Johnson said, that led to abusers being "emboldened."
Johnson continued:

We have thousands of victims [of FGM] in Britain,
thousands of girls being cut every year, and yet we have managed not a
single prosecution -- let alone a conviction. Again, there is that fatal
squeamishness about intervening in the behavior of a 'protected group'.
... We need to be stronger and clearer in asserting our understanding
of British values. That is nowhere more apparent [than] in the daily job
of those who protect us all from terror -- and who are engaged in
tackling the spread of extremist and radical Islam.We are familiar by now with the threat posed by the preachers of
hate, the extremist clerics who can sow the seeds of madness in the
minds of impressionable young people. We are watching like hawks to see
who comes back from Syria and the ideas they have picked up.

The horrific bloodshed in Syria has indeed attracted terror recruits
from British and other Muslim communities, and Johnson's warning was
timely. On the same day he published his column in The Sunday Telegraph -- March 2 -- one of that paper's more "progressive" competitors, The Observer, which is the weekend edition of The Guardian, reported
that Moazzem Begg, 45, a resident of Birmingham, in the British
Midlands, interned for almost three years as a terrorist suspect in the
US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was ordered held in custody for
terrorism-related offences involving Syria.Begg's arrest had been revealed by The Daily Telegraph on February 25.CNN International stated
on March 3, 2014, that Begg was "accused of providing instruction and
training for terrorism and funding terrorism overseas," as disclosed by
West Midlands Police. Begg is due to return to court on March 14, The Observer said.

The Observer had noted that a female Birmingham resident,
Gerrie Tahari, 44, was also in custody after she was similarly charged
with facilitating terrorism overseas, and that two more men, aged 20 and
36, were arrested at the same time in Birmingham and held by the
authorities. The original February 25 Telegraph account of the case described the 20-year old as Tahari's son.Mayor Johnson warned of "reluctance by the social services to
intervene.... A child may be taken into care if he or she is being
exposed to pornography, or is being abused -- but not if the child is
being habituated to this utterly bleak and nihilistic [radical Muslim]
view of the world that could lead them to become murderers…"As Johnson wrote, "Pedophilia, FGM, Islamic radicalization -- to some
extent, at some stage, we have tiptoed round them all for fear of
offending this or that minority. It is children who have suffered. ...
The law should obviously treat radicalization as a form of child abuse."Moderate, traditional, spiritual, and even conservative British
Muslims should hearken to Johnson's message and support effective
measures to curb the spread of extremist ideology among their vulnerable
offspring. Not only are these practices morally abhorrent, and deserve
more than the complicity of silence, but in addition, the survival of
Islam as a normal component of the religious spectrum in the UK is at
stake.Irfan Al-AlawiSource: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4220/islamist-terror-britain-johnson Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

by Yoav LimorThe Israeli airstrikes in Quneitra on Wednesday morning told us that Israel has reached a conclusion: Syria is responsible for the recent explosive devices laid on the Israel-Syria border fence in the Golan Heights, including Monday's explosion which wounded four paratroopers.In Israel, it is believed that Syria's decision to open a new front on the Israeli border was a response to the multiple strikes which took place in Syria, intended to thwart the transfer of advanced weaponry to Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah. It is unclear whether Hezbollah took part in terrorist activity, but the Syrian regime's fingerprints are clear and unequivocal, among them the Syrian army (Brigade 90, which operates in the region), its military security apparatus near the border and the Syrian homeland defense force. Israeli jets struck targets belonging to those three groups on Wednesday.

From the information gathered, Israel believes terrorist groups employed by embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime are responsible for the attacks. As proof, the defense establishment has pointed out that all of the attacks were carried out in regions under Syrian military control, while areas under rebel control have not seen terrorist activity pointed at Israel.Wednesday morning's strike -- the first time Israel admitted to carrying out an airstrike in Syria since bombing terrorist camps in Ain es Saheb in 2003 -- was meant to change the rules of the game with Syria. Israel in effect told Syria it would not tolerate a change of the dynamic on the border, or any increase in attacks on IDF troops.As of Wednesday night, it remained to be seen whether Damascus would change its policy, or whether the Israeli action would draw a Syrian response. Senior officials in Israel stated that Israel will maintain that any violation of its sovereignty will be met with a response, and that it will not allow future attempts to transfer advanced weaponry to Lebanon go silently.On the backdrop of the instability in Syria and the Assad regime's increased commitment to Hezbollah and Iran for their support, the IDF's level of response demonstrated on Wednesday might be put to the test again in the near future.Yoav LimorSource: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7777 Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

One soldier seriously wounded, three others receive light-to-moderate injuries when roadside bomb explodes near IDF patrol on border with Syria in the Golan Heights • Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: We strike those who strike us.

One of the wounded soldiers arriving at Rambam Medical Center in Haifa

|

Photo credit: Herzl Shapira

<<

>>

Tuesday's border incident, as seen from the Syrian side of the border

|

Photo credit: Sameer Said Ahmd/www.star-2000.tv

<<

1

2

3

>>

The Israel-Syria border [Archive]

|

Photo credit: Ancho Gosh / JINI

Israeli Air Force fighter jets struck several targets inside Syria in the early hours of Wednesday morning, after four Israeli soldiers were wounded Tuesday afternoon on the Israel-Syria border by a powerful explosive device that targeted an Israel Defense Forces patrol.

One soldier was seriously wounded, while three others suffered light-to-moderate injuries. The soldiers, all members of the Paratroopers Brigade, were airlifted to Rambam Medical Center in Haifa.

Credit: Avi Mazoz, JINI, Ofer Freimen, Michel Dot Com

On Wednesday, the IDF said in a statement on its website, "Several hours ago, the IDF struck several Syrian military and security targets located on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, which aided the terror attack that left four Israeli soldiers wounded."

"The targets included artillery batteries and posts, as well as a Syrian Army training facility," the statement said. It further confirmed that IDF forces deployed in the sector "returned artillery fire at targets across the border immediately after [Tuesday's] incident and identified a direct hit on one of their targets.

"The IDF reserves the right to act at any time and by any means necessary to defend the people of Israel. A message to that effect has been relayed to Syria following the incident, via the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in the area," the statement said.

Dr. Michael Halbertal, Rambam's deputy director, told Army Radio that all four soldiers sustained various degrees of shrapnel injuries. Rambam's trauma chief, Dr. Hani Bachus, said Wednesday that the soldier who sustained serious injuries "suffered a head wound. He underwent two emergency surgeries and is currently in the intensive care unit. His condition is serious and he is still is mortal danger."

The Syrian army on Wednesday said the Israeli airstrikes killed one Syrian soldier and wounded seven. The Syrian army said the strikes targeted three posts near the town of Quneitra.The Syrian statement also warned Israel against escalating the situation by repeating such "hostile acts." The statement said such acts "endanger the security and stability of the region."

An initial Israeli military inquiry into Tuesday's incident found that the it took place shortly after Israeli troops in the sector spotted a suspicious individual in a border-adjacent enclave on the eastern side of the security fence -- an area which is under Israeli sovereignty.

Two armored vehicles, one carrying the deputy commander of the 202nd Battalion in the Paratroopers Brigade and the other carrying the deputy commander of a company in the battalion, scrambled to the area. As the soldiers were disembarking their vehicles, a powerful roadside bomb was triggered nearby, wounding four of them.

Commenting on the strike, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that "the IDF has struck targets on Syrian soil overnight. Those targets had not only enabled the attack on our troops, they cooperated with it. Our policy is very clear -- we strike at those how strike at us.

"We also spare no effort to thwart weapon smuggling attempts at sea, on land and in the air, and overall this activity has resulted in the fact that over the past five years, terror has been at it lowest in a decade, both in casualties and in rocket attacks. Still, from time to time we are required to initiate strikes, as we did in this case, to maintain this calm," Netanyahu said. "It is this policy that is responsible for maintaining Israel's security and safety of its citizens. Within the Middle East, which is undergoing incredible turmoil, Israel remains the most stable and safe place."

Netanyahu commented on the border incident during Tuesday's Likud faction meeting, saying, "The Israel-Syria border is swarming with Hezbollah and jihad elements that pose a new challenge for the State of Israel. Over the past few years we have been able to maintain a quiet border despite the civil war in Syria. We will act forcefully to maintain Israel's security."

Earlier on Tuesday, Netanyahu spoke about the security situation in southern Israel, saying, "Operation Pillar of Defense was followed by a lull the likes of which has not been seen in a decade. We will not tolerate the trickle of rockets and my policy is clear: any fire will meet an immediate and forceful response."

Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon told Army Radio Wednesday that "Israel will not tolerate any infringement on its sovereignty or any attack on our soldiers or civilians. We will response with force and tenacity to any attack, anywhere and anytime, as we did here."

Syrian President Bashar Assad "will be held accountable for any action emanating from his territory and if he continues to collaborate with terror groups that seek to harm Israel we will exact a heavy price from him and we will make him regret his actions," Ya'alon said.

While no terror group has claimed responsibility for the attack at this time, defense officials said that while it was most likely launched by Hezbollah, the possibility that the attack was the handiwork of global jihad terrorists, or even the Syrian military itself, was still being investigated.

An IDF source said that the leading scenario at this time suggests that the roadside bomb was triggered as part of an ambush, in which a Syrian shepherd was used to lure the soldiers out of their vehicles, making them more vulnerable for attack. This method was frequently used against IDF troops prior to Israel's withdrawal from the security zone in southern Lebanon in 2000, he told Army Radio.

"The execution of this attack was professional. There is no doubt that the Syrians knew about it -- they may have even carried it out for Hezbollah," former Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin told Army Radio. "Something like this, if it proves true, is a game changer and Israel has to make it clear that it would come with a very heavy price. Israel's policy is to hold the country from which an attack emanates responsible for the consequences."

Another defense sources that if the attack was launched by Hezbollah, it was most likely in retaliation for recent airstrikes in Lebanon, which foreign media sources have attributed to Israel. The source said that Hezbollah prefers to launch attacks from Syria, as Israel has warned Lebanon that any attack emanating from its soil would meet a harsh response. The source added that Hezbollah's reluctance to claim responsibility for such attacks indicates that it is trying to avoid a full-blown conflict with Israel.

Tuesday's attack was the third of its kind in the past two weeks, joining a growing series of security incidents on the northern border.

Meanwhile, the Saudi-based Al Arabiya network reported Tuesday that the border incident was an attempt to abduct the soldiers who were wounded. Hezbollah's own Al-Manar TV also covered the incident, but made no mention of an abduction attempt or any other detail that might link the Shiite terror group to the attack.

Israeli defense officials dismissed the notion that the attack was part of an attempted abduction.

Family members of the officer who was seriously hurt in the attack have been at his side since he arrived at Rambam on Tuesday afternoon. "He's a strong boy and we have to believe he's going to pull through," a relative told Israel Hayom.